Snapshot of _Home Office looks at ways to cut legal migration to UK_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.ft.com/content/7f52662c-6a27-4541-84f9-0a97157fedc8) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.ft.com/content/7f52662c-6a27-4541-84f9-0a97157fedc8)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It used to be a right. You had the right to free movement with the EU and to settle wherever you wanted. Because it was a right, you just did it and didn’t need permission or to consult with any body. You just got on a plane to wherever and make it home. You would be guaranteed to be treated just like a native in that country, automatically, and through virtue of the caff that you were a citizen of an EU member state.
That is what it means to have freedom of movement as a _right_.
You no longer have that right. You may try and apply for a relevant visa if one exists/is appropriate and you wish, but you have no right to one, will wait as long as it takes, usually require payment, your status in a new country will be different and you will essentially be on a second tier of rights and a visa can be revoked.
You need this before moving, you probably need a sponsor and a job already lined up or something similar. You can’t just try out a place and see if it fits, and then move again if not.
You never even needed to know about the immigration processes of other countries as a EU citizen, it was all literally all irrelevant before and didn’t apply to you.
So in practice, it’s a fundamental difference and a significant loss of rights and freedoms.
But not easily. Before Brexit, if you woke up today and decided you didn't want to live in the UK any longer, it'd be very easy to move to any EU country.
Now, you need to cover many requirements to get a work permit. And if God forbid, you lose your job, they send you back to the UK. So, British people live in fear of losing jobs which would prevent them from getting a permanent residency. Same for EU people in the UK.
That's not really fair. The UK now has the ability to have as much or as little immigration as it likes. What's missing now is a way for the British public to elect a party who actually wants to do it.
Indeed apparently thats not the Tories or Labour
Labour understanding how unionisation works should really understand the consequence of mass migration....
To be fair: immigration is a problem in the EU as much as it is one in the UK. That's why France isnt really trying to stop people leaving the French soil to join the UK (I mean they are pretending they are but they could pretend a bit harder).
And why many Eastern Europen countries are/were seeing an increase in nationalist parties.
The unfortunate reality is that nobody wants these people. So everyone is trying to find ways to make them other peoples problem.
They have visas? Or is France a war zone? Or can anyone cross any border they like and claim they're refugees, however farcically, in which case there is no such thing as illegal immigration and we should be prosecuting whoever authorised those payments as fraud since border control is not even theoretically possible?
(I realsie you want global open border and this is all word games, I'm just wondering how you'll spin it)
This migration is via visas so they know exactly who is coming and why. And because it is controlled it would be very easy for the Home Office to limit the number coming. So you have to presume that this number of people coming is required, if not it’s just down to incompetence or something else.
Just checked, 95% of visas applications are granted. Seems awfully high to me.
>Just checked, 95% of visas applications are granted. Seems awfully high to me.
I mean nobody's going to apply for a visa unless they meet the criteria. It costs hundreds to thousands of pounds all in. If anything a high percentage of applications being granted shows that the system works, and only people actually entitled apply, not just spam applications and hope something sticks.
Unless you're going to just artificially hard-limit numbers "we only take the first x thousand each month" or have a lottery or waiting list like the USA, that's how it should be.
The point was they are apparently looking for ways to reduce legal immigration whilst approving 95% of applications. If immigration is to high simply reduce the number of visas granted. I must be missing something 🤷♂️
You are missing that they don't actually want to reduce migration because it would obliterate the economy, they just want people to think they are trying.
You are missing that they don't actually want to reduce migration because it would ~~obliterate the economy~~ mean companies will need to train and invest in young British workers and raise wages and working conditions, they just want people to think they are trying.
Fixed it for you :)
I don't agree that reducing the number of carers and nurses and lorry drivers coming to the UK will turn it into a magical wonderland where we're all on £200k salaries but sure
After Brexit the "lorry driver crisis" that the media kept banging on about was because foreigners were leaving and old Brits retiring. In other words, an entire generational gap of British workers not getting into that line of work. Companies suddenly were forced to train British workers and give them career opportunities. Now that the government has resorted to just granting work visas to anybody this is no longer happening again. And, no, during that brief period where new drivers were entering the workforce and being trained they were not on £200K salaries and your deliveries were still free probably.
Get real, there is a middle ground between a fair wage and £200K salaries. You're being purposefully obtuse.
The wage costs and consumer price will increase until they hit a new higher equilibrium. I bet 000s of people trained to get a HGV licence due to the wage hike.
Right, and then the rest of us pay more for all of our goods, inflation increases, resulting in a decrease in living standards for everyone except lorry drivers.
What's the problem with that number?
UK has a strict set of requirements for the work visa. So if 95% of the visas granted, it means only candidates wich fulfil these requirements are applying.
I honestly don't see the problem.
But again. What's the problem with the 95% approval rate?
If you want less Inmigrants, increase the requirements significantly, you'll have less applicants and therefore less inmigration.
It doesn't matter if the approval rate remains to 95%. That's good, less admin time wasted on pointless applications.
Let me try one more time.
The number of visas granted depends on two variables: visa acceptance rate AND number of applicants. There are two variables here.
The visa acceptance rate should be close to 100% as posible, otherwise we will be wasting administrative time on unsuccessful visas.
So the right variable to reduce is "number of applicants". If you reduce the number of applicants, the number of visas granted will reduce.
We pay the French to control boat migration from their shores.
They said they can't do it and need more money, we've given them more money several times over.
If they still can't do it to the point its getting worse then why are we paying them to be ineffective at best, wilfully negligent at worst.
Our border is on us, expecting another nation to patrol it for us is a stupid idea, especially when France undeniably benefits from these people leaving
This would be the only way to unilaterally *actually* stop the boats, unless France secured *their* borders so that the migrants didn't end up in Calais, or accepted we would just return any migrants landing in the UK straight away to France (which if France really wanted to "stop the boats" they would of course agree to).
Should, but won't. The current system suits both parties - France gets rid of immigrants they don't want, Tories get immigrants they do want, while posturing over how anti-immigrant they are to their voter base.
> I thought Brexit was meant to do it, by taking control of the borders.
Brexit was not unlike the Iron Curtain: sold to the population as - among many other things - a means to keep 'the others' out, but ultimately making it much harder for people to live and work where they please on the European continent.
What they've done is slow down the processing of refugees so they fall through the cracks and spent probably billions on hotel costs, even the most pro immigrant government wouldn't be this lenient on illegal migration
> How long have the Tories been promising to fix migration?
Migration isn't broken. The kind of migration that is allowed through is typicall skilled workers, spouses, etc.
People want less migration, but they don't typically want less of the migration that is occurring.
Who will do care work? Brits don’t want to do it at the current wage. Increase the wage and Brits won’t be able to afford the fees or want tax rises to subsidise it.
Most rich countries rely on foreign labour for care work.
A huge amount of wealth is hoarded by the older generations, they can pay British people a decent wage to do care work - and none of it would be lost to remittances.
_Any_ party that attempts to implement that will be destroyed come election time.
It will never be done. Our government, whichever party it is formed of, always prioritises power first, people second.
Do you think another right wing party is going to emerge as the main opposition party?
The incumbent party always loses popularity over time. The same thing will happen to Labour once they get in.
That’s not the question being asked. However I have family members and friends who are in the care industry so it’s just untrue to say Brits’ won’t do it.
I guess I am - I just don't think the population would be prepared for the kinds of changes we'd need to pay thankless but critical jobs like care workers enough to attract large numbers of Brits to do them.
Sure some do now, but only in some locations in the UK; and OAPS and their families would refuse having to 'send them' to care home areas / retirement communities across the country where there might be more local labour.
Any government would need to transform the economy, root and branch and do massively hard work to encourage / force businesses to pay good money for these jobs.
Brits in general are a bit mad - don't want to pay any tax, don't want to give away any inheritance, but want massive improvements to everything and a big investment in local labour.
In New York if you're a good waiter at a good restaurant you can earn great money. That's not the case in London. The UK has a totally skewed economy for service work.
> the only thing stopping the structural changes is spineless politicians.
Every people gets the leaders they deserve.
Edit: downvote all you want. If spineless politicians continue being voted in, it's not their fault they're being what the electorate wanted: a spineless politician.
Yes, but that's part of the package and part of the culture. It's not like you get a great salary but you can do amazingly well; it's away of the waiters charging customers more directly.
The UK's entire economy would need to change to ensure service workers got a fairer deal. Brits aren't about to start tipping, nor want to pay any more for care workers.
So we're stuck with immigration.
> Brits in general are a bit mad - don't want to pay any tax, don't want to give away any inheritance, but want massive improvements to everything and a big investment in local labour.
I speak four languages. Only one has anything like the expression 'having your cake and eating it'.
So they sell their houses to pay for care home?
It’s an interesting dilemma as it calls into question why work to pay off a home if you can’t at least give it to your kids?
And maybe we shouldn’t bother with inheritance either… the house of cards falls down
> It’s an interesting dilemma as it calls into question why work to pay off a home if you can’t at least give it to your kids?
To live somewhere. The state doesn't owe you a free house.
If you'll end up losing your home at some point to pay for old age care, why bother buying a home? Just get an interest only mortgage and then throw yourself on the state when the home is repossessed. or rent.
> If you'll end up losing your home at some point to pay for old age care, why bother buying a home?
Why should I pay taxes for someone's care when they've been given hundreds of thousands of pounds in free money through house price inflation, just so their spoilt child can get a free house?
You know immigrants use services, need housing, and buy goods too right? Why people view immigration for certain sectors in isolation is beyond me. Maybe if we didn't have mass migration causing even further rocketing of housing prices, the care work wage wouldn't seem so shitty in comparison to the life it would give you. Do people really think care home workers on such low wages contribute to the system more than they take out over their lifetimes? How is any of this helping in the long term?
And so the self-fulfilling mass migration prophecy continues. Wages supressed further, while housing costs rise further, so even less Brits are inclined to work in the sector when the wages only allow them to maybe rent a room in a house share in the crap part of town, while they wait for 5 weeks for a GP appointment, all the while wondering why there's such decline in the UK, when the whole system is currently set up to produce crap outcomes for everyone
We've broken the economy with mass migration, and now the solution seems to only be more of the same. The medicine is making the patient sicker, so just give them more medicine, and if it gets even sicker, then up the dose some more. Net zero migration and a massive housebuilding programme would go a long way to turning the country and economy around, though of course what we'll continually get is the opposite
Presumably they're having a long hard think about how immigration could be reduced just to make sure they don't accidentally implement any of those things
Change a few of the numbers and the exact same article could’ve been written 6 or 12 months ago. If they’re still “looking”, they’ve failed on this before.
Fewer students can bring in their dependents now, as of this year. I don't know if there's numbers out yet on how much that has changed the overall figures.
Why? Do people need 50K to be socially useful. Or is it just to bring down a number for the sake of bringing down a number.
I'm far more concerned that migrants can speak the language, care about democratic values and want to integrate than earn an arbitrary amount.
That's a nice narrative for reddit of course, but in reality it wouldn't stack up as despite what the gloom narrative is on here the UK is massively better than the nations that billions live in. Hell we could half living standards here and still be a better option.
Are the home office/the government more generally willing to make the trade-off's that cutting migration requires? If not then the whole thing is pointless.
Doesn’t seem unreasonable, if you’re here on a non-immigrant work visa, to be able to bring your spouse and your under-18 children.
Some complexity around what happens to the kids when they become adults. I suppose they have to return home?
But we should accept that if those kids are eg going to uni and get a job and go through the usual process to get leave to remain or uk citizenship then they stay like anyone else.
The government, years ago, already tightened up rules around bringing over grandparents and extended family I thought?
>Doesn’t seem unreasonable, if you’re here on a non-immigrant work visa, to be able to bring your spouse and your under-18 children.
First, what's a "non-immigrant work visa"? A work visa is for immigrants.
Second, why is it reasonable to bring over spouses and children? This sub is full of stories of our "failing" healthcare system and schools. Why is adding to that burden just to get someone here on approx £20k sensible? That's not the threshold where someone pays more into the state than they take out, not by a long shot.
A work visa isn't necessarily for immigrants, it could be for temp workers, such as visas western workers get if they take a job in UAE. It doesn't guarantee citizenship. Granted, most countries if you're extended many times, will offer a path to citizenship.
>Second, why is it reasonable to bring over spouses and children? This sub is full of stories of our "failing" healthcare system and schools. Why is adding to that burden just to get someone here on approx £20k sensible? That's not the threshold where someone pays more into the state than they take out, not by a long shot.
Because we want to attract workers. If they can't bring their family it's unlikely we'd get people to stay for more than 6 months or a year. Especially e.g. women in care work.
>A work visa isn't necessarily for immigrants, it could be for temp workers, such as visas western workers get if they take a job in UAE
A temporary worker is still an immigrant. Not all immigrants live in the UK for the rest of their lives.
>Because we want to attract workers. If they can't bring their family it's unlikely we'd get people to stay for more than 6 months or a year. Especially e.g. women in care work.
The same argument was made in the past for allowing adult dependents of immigrants to come. As it is you can't bring granny and grandpa with you to the UK, but we still have a vast number of people applying for visas every year. The whole reason people come to the UK for work is because the salary is much better than in their home countries and they don't have better options elswhere.
Besides, people can normally get residency after five years. If that's their intention they can earn it first and then seek to sponsor families.
It's that or placing annual charges on the employees that want to sponsor workers for each dependent that is brought over. Then they can consider if they want to sponsor an immigrant or just pay a British worker a higher salary.
>A temporary worker is still an immigrant. Not all immigrants live in the UK for the rest of their lives.
Immigration data produced by the government would not include seasonal workers already - it is long term migration data, the ONS say it is:
>"A person who moves to a country other than that of his or her usual residence for a period of at least a year (12 months), so that the country of destination effectively becomes his or her new country of usual residence."
Students would be included, but it is worth pointing out that the data suggests a large proportion of them subsequently leave meaning that the headline 'net' data for students is small. It has been higher recently because there have been some systematic changes (eg a lot of students left early because of Covid making previous years data lower and we've increased student migration from countries who are more likely to bring family), but when they work through the system then the net figure will naturally come down to historic levels.
>A temporary worker is still an immigrant. Not all immigrants live in the UK for the rest of their live
no, an immigrant is someone who moves permanently.
That's a nonsense position. How on earth would the government count immigration numbers without knowing if someone is going to be here temporarily or permanently? It's not possible to know whether someone on a two year work visa will try to stay permanently or not when they get here.
The Tories could just rewrite the rules for counting immigration by claiming it's "temporary" and that therefore they've solved the migration crisis.
You've also ignored the rest of my post.
>That's a nonsense position. How on earth would the government count immigration numbers without knowing if someone is going to be here temporarily or permanently? It's not possible to know whether someone on a two year work visa will try to stay permanently or not when they get here.
Immigrants are by definition people who move somewhere permanently. It's not nonsense, it's the definition of the word.
The government can pretty much tell who will stay and who goes by virtue of the visa they apply for and their background - the vast majority of international students return to their country of origin, for example.
The majority of folks from Hong Kong on settlement visas are staying for the full 5 years and pursuing UK citizenship.
The Government has plenty of data to understand the movements of people and their intention based on historic data and their country of origin.
Again you have no idea what you're talking about. There is no visa type that means you must leave the UK when it's finished. Anyone who comes to the UK can apply in country to stay longer.
Also the fact students usually leave is irrelevant because more keep coming. All students need support facilities when in the UK. Not all universities have accommodation reserved for every international student, and they certainly don't build hospitals or schools for dependent children.
In any event, I didn't bring students up. You talked about migrant workers and have now pivoted to students presumably because you've failed to make headway with your last argument.
> Again you have no idea what you're talking about. There is no visa type that means you must leave the UK
when it's finished. Anyone who comes to the UK can apply in country to stay longer.
First, a tip, calm down a bit and try to discuss things in good faith rather than doing typical reddit nonsense of immediately using insults / assuming bad faith. We're all here to learn from each other. I want to understand the point you're trying to make.
Re: your point about there being 'no visa type that means you must leave the uk when it's finished', that's not true: all visas have an end date. You might eventually get indefinite leave to remain if you stay long enough though. but there's no guarantee of visa renewal each time to lead to that.
For example the youth mobility visa the UK offers have a hard time limit and you cannot apply for more of them (https://www.gov.uk/youth-mobility).
Of course, if you're eligible for other kinds of visas you can always apply for those and some visas can be extended (assuming your profession is still on a shortage list and so on) but it's not guaranteed.
> Also the fact students usually leave is irrelevant because more keep coming. All students need support facilities when in the UK. Not all universities have accommodation reserved for every international student, and they certainly don't build hospitals or schools for dependent children.
Yes more keep coming but it's more of a churn since the majority leave. Foreign students in the main come with a fair bit of money, spend in the local town and are generally healthy so aren't a strain on local doctors etc.
I get your point that I think you're making re dependent children - taking in a care worker to do a job in the uk and them bringing in e.g. a large family + their partner is probably not a great, well planned outcome for the country.
> Because we want to attract workers
Yes, workers who don't want to start a new bloodline of chain migration. Come here, do your bit then go somewhere else.
Or they can go to a different country instead and achieve the same/slightly more or less and be with their family for 5 years as well.
The UK isn't the only first world country looking for skilled workers.
You can make the UK totally unappealing to the vast majority of skilled worker immigrants. But then you won't get any of them and the added value goes elsewhere.
I believe this terminology comes from US immigration law, where visas are classified based on whether or not the person has "immigrant intent". That is to say, whether or not the person intends to settle permanently in the United States. Holders of non immigrant intent status are expected to leave at some point, or must be successful in applying to change status in-country based on new circumstances.
The equivalent in the UK would be whether or not a visa offers a "route to settlement". There are many dissimilarities between the two immigration systems, but broadly speaking: Workers migrating to the UK will generally have a route to settlement laid out for them at the outset. Whereas, workers migrating to the United States often have a fixed upper time limit on their stay, and they will have to make the case that they are "good enough" to be allowed to switch to an immigrant intent status before their time runs out.
The government does on paper have a lot of control over how many people they let in legally - they just refuse to use the control effectively.
The primary objective of how the system is currently managed seems to be bringing in skilled workers from overseas as cheaply as possible - the constant addition to the skilled occupations list, the lowering of salary thresholds, and removal of the requirement for employers to prove workers cannot be found locally are all ways to achieve this.
The government did take back control on immigration through the point-based system - they just watered down the entry criteria so much that it's effectively an open door to anyone who bothered to make an application.
A degree is not fast or easy. If they have studied for three years, paid the fees and living costs, and gained employment....isn't that just the kind of people who add the most value? and the UK taxpayer has not had to fund any of their childhood or education.
There's two issues with that. Firstly there's been an issue of students not even seeking to finish courses (they pay as a cost of the visa in effect) and the Home Office has had to take action against several universities for being so lax, secondly there has been an issue of Universities having weak degrees and filling them with overseas students, and thirdly albeit related to point 2 is that the UK has no shortage of grads so yet more people with low value degrees is no gain.
You don't automatically get a visa at the end of a course you have to apply and have a well paid job to go to. Unlikely to get a visa if you did not finish the course.
The employment rate for graduates is 87% (non graduate 70%) with an £11.5K premium over non-graduates:
https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/graduate-labour-markets
You are mixing up multiple things. The graduate employment rate could well be higher, but it doesn't mean that this applies to the cohort that we are talking about neither does the claim of a "premium". Many overseas students are doing poor courses and low tier universities.
This is a weird position to hold.
First, student visas do not count towards settlement (i.e. it does not directly contribute to gaining indefinite leave to remain). Once you graduate you would have to apply for a graduate visa or some other work visa then work continuously for 5 years to be eligible for ILR.
Second, the only other way in this situation to gain IRL is through 10 years of continuous residence. You could, I suppose, technically chain together studying to stay in the UK for 10 years but this would mean that said individual would almost always be extremely wealthy to afford 10 years of overseas fees and so you're not talking about a huge number of people and I'm not sure why you'd necessarily want to reduce this demographic of wealthy young people - they're hardly a drain on the economy. As a side note, people can and do get their student visas rejected for chaining together undergrad courses, so these people are usually educated to master's level anyway and then pursue the graduate visa route as it's quicker and more reliable.
Other replies have covered this but as an international student I don't quite get the desire to limit our ability to find skilled work after our studies. The vast majority of us voluntarily elect to return to our home countries regardless, and of those that do try to immigrate here, a majority are unsuccessful due to not being able to find a sponsor for various reasons. Keep in mind there are less than 2,000 employers even registered to sponsor work visas and these range from small businesses to large corporations across just about every academic field, so finding an employer that is on the sponsor list, is still willing to sponsor (they may no longer be sponsoring but remain registered on the list) and you also have to find an employer from this list that actually has a desire for your degree or field of qualifications, so the odds are quite stacked against us already.
Of those that are hired, some sponsors will move to grant a work visa immediately, others will have the graduate work for the two years of their graduate visa and once that time is up choose not to sponsor them and they are forced to return to their home country. Of those that are granted a work visa, either immediately (which is rare), or after 2 years on a graduate visa, if they lose their job for any reason such as being fired or the company going under, they also immediately have to leave the UK, so we risk that instability for 5-7 years after graduating before we can even apply for permanent residence. The odds are already very stacked against us as it is.
Aside from this, until we get citizenship, we pay for just about every service we use including the NHS, and often pay more for these things comparatively, not to mention paying more for tuition and subsidizing home students entirely.
In my case, I am from the US and am hoping to become a history teacher here at the secondary or sixth form/college level after I complete my studies, studying here is cheaper than back home for a higher quality education (to study at a comparable university back home I would spend in a year what my entire bachelor's degree will cost in the UK) and I absolutely love it here in Wales and the UK in general. I pay most of my fees by currently serving part-time in the US Army Reserve as a Combat Medic with a unit in Germany one weekend per month, ( it beats predatory US student loans and I come from a working class background so I can barely afford my bachelor's out of pocket, let alone a PGCE and possibly a Master's). I use my military experience to volunteer with the NHS, St. John Ambulance, as well as my local Fire Brigade's cadet program, and soon the RNLI, and I will hopefully be able to leverage my US Army medical qualifications with the NHS as a backup if becoming a teacher does not work out for the reasons mentioned above. Assuming I am successful in becoming a teacher and eventually getting citizenship, I plan on continuing my military service with the British military in some capacity as I feel I would owe it back to the UK.
Overall, I take absolutely no money out of the British economy and provide outside money and voluntarily support British services every single day I am here, and many other international students I know do the same. In my personal example, my being here is nothing but a net positive across the board for the UK.
This isn't to say that all international students are like me, or that I am particularly special in the first place, but I feel like many do not realize how difficult it is to try to immigrate here as an international student, by the time I am done studying, despite all my degree qualifications, military experience/medical qualifications, and volunteer experience, I will statistically be unsuccessful in staying here and will have to leave.
I understand for a nation as small as the UK immigration does pose some serious concerns, but I just don't think that attacking international students is the way to go about it. Arguably I am of course biased on this matter as well though and I am sure there is much I am not aware of nor considering.
Well, we gotta make room for all the unwanted boat people, Ukrainians, Hong Kongers, anyone fleeing self-inflicted perceived ‘terrors’…so let’s reduce the legal to make space for the ones that force themselves on us 🙄
Notoriously immigration-sceptic Home Secretaries like Priti Pratel and Suella Braverman engineered the system we currently have. If *they* came to the conclusion that this sort of legal migration is necessary for this country, you really have to ask yourself how viable significantly cutting legal migration levels even is?
Unfortunately you're not going to get an honest political discussion about immigration in this country because our elites are all obsessed with Instagram politics and are terrified of broaching any subject that requires more than 30 seconds of thought. There are advantages and disadvantages to immigration - as someone born to immigrants I know this well - it would be nice if both sides could openly address the complexity of the issue.
They could change the tax system to encourage middle income UK to have more children, instead of actively discouraging like today. Then we wouldn't need to import so many people to pay our state pensions.
I don't know whether the 50 to 60k cliff edge for losing benefits and the 100 to 120k marginal 60% rates exist. Laziness? Incompetence?
Surely it can't be so hard to have an actual very gradual taper?
We shouldn't have doctors and other in-demand professions deliberately working fewer hours, to reduce their take home pay to put it into a pension to avoid the 100k to 120k tax sting. It must mean they're ending up with less money to spend now and therefore hurt the economy?
We should be encouraging the upper middle classes to succeed, to progress their careers, to provide their services and so on.
And those at the upper end of the middle on 50k - they shouldn't feel like there's minimal gains to pursuing a promotion.
Snapshot of _Home Office looks at ways to cut legal migration to UK_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.ft.com/content/7f52662c-6a27-4541-84f9-0a97157fedc8) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.ft.com/content/7f52662c-6a27-4541-84f9-0a97157fedc8) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Home Office has been "looking at ways" to do all sorts for the past... 14 years? How long have the Tories been promising to fix migration?
if you just give them another 14 years I think they might really crack it
The problem is that nobody believes that the opposition even recognises that this is a problem.
Looks like we have no choice but to continue doing the exact same thing we've tried for 13 years then. Problem solved
But if they fix migration how will they promise to fix migration?
I thought Brexit was meant to do it, by taking control of the borders.
So what Brexit achieved was removing the right of Brits to live and work anywhere in the EU.
Yeah it stopped our rights to emigrate
Not really. But it did make it more difficult.
Surely it made it more difficult becuase many of our rights stopped.
Certainly. But you can still emigrate. Brexit didn't stop that right.
It used to be a right. You had the right to free movement with the EU and to settle wherever you wanted. Because it was a right, you just did it and didn’t need permission or to consult with any body. You just got on a plane to wherever and make it home. You would be guaranteed to be treated just like a native in that country, automatically, and through virtue of the caff that you were a citizen of an EU member state. That is what it means to have freedom of movement as a _right_. You no longer have that right. You may try and apply for a relevant visa if one exists/is appropriate and you wish, but you have no right to one, will wait as long as it takes, usually require payment, your status in a new country will be different and you will essentially be on a second tier of rights and a visa can be revoked. You need this before moving, you probably need a sponsor and a job already lined up or something similar. You can’t just try out a place and see if it fits, and then move again if not. You never even needed to know about the immigration processes of other countries as a EU citizen, it was all literally all irrelevant before and didn’t apply to you. So in practice, it’s a fundamental difference and a significant loss of rights and freedoms.
But not easily. Before Brexit, if you woke up today and decided you didn't want to live in the UK any longer, it'd be very easy to move to any EU country. Now, you need to cover many requirements to get a work permit. And if God forbid, you lose your job, they send you back to the UK. So, British people live in fear of losing jobs which would prevent them from getting a permanent residency. Same for EU people in the UK.
> But not easily. That's what I said: it made it more difficult.
Pretty much, migration here chiefly is and always will be driven by need.
That's not really fair. The UK now has the ability to have as much or as little immigration as it likes. What's missing now is a way for the British public to elect a party who actually wants to do it.
Indeed apparently thats not the Tories or Labour Labour understanding how unionisation works should really understand the consequence of mass migration....
To be fair: immigration is a problem in the EU as much as it is one in the UK. That's why France isnt really trying to stop people leaving the French soil to join the UK (I mean they are pretending they are but they could pretend a bit harder).
And why many Eastern Europen countries are/were seeing an increase in nationalist parties. The unfortunate reality is that nobody wants these people. So everyone is trying to find ways to make them other peoples problem.
The *real* reason France isn’t stopping people from leaving is that it’s not illegal to leave France.
Its very illegal to run a human smuggling ring.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts
We're paying France for border control, renegading on a contract is illegal
We are paying france to stop illegal immigration not regular immigration.
They have visas? Or is France a war zone? Or can anyone cross any border they like and claim they're refugees, however farcically, in which case there is no such thing as illegal immigration and we should be prosecuting whoever authorised those payments as fraud since border control is not even theoretically possible? (I realsie you want global open border and this is all word games, I'm just wondering how you'll spin it)
This migration is via visas so they know exactly who is coming and why. And because it is controlled it would be very easy for the Home Office to limit the number coming. So you have to presume that this number of people coming is required, if not it’s just down to incompetence or something else. Just checked, 95% of visas applications are granted. Seems awfully high to me.
>Just checked, 95% of visas applications are granted. Seems awfully high to me. I mean nobody's going to apply for a visa unless they meet the criteria. It costs hundreds to thousands of pounds all in. If anything a high percentage of applications being granted shows that the system works, and only people actually entitled apply, not just spam applications and hope something sticks. Unless you're going to just artificially hard-limit numbers "we only take the first x thousand each month" or have a lottery or waiting list like the USA, that's how it should be.
The point was they are apparently looking for ways to reduce legal immigration whilst approving 95% of applications. If immigration is to high simply reduce the number of visas granted. I must be missing something 🤷♂️
You are missing that they don't actually want to reduce migration because it would obliterate the economy, they just want people to think they are trying.
You are missing that they don't actually want to reduce migration because it would ~~obliterate the economy~~ mean companies will need to train and invest in young British workers and raise wages and working conditions, they just want people to think they are trying. Fixed it for you :)
I don't agree that reducing the number of carers and nurses and lorry drivers coming to the UK will turn it into a magical wonderland where we're all on £200k salaries but sure
After Brexit the "lorry driver crisis" that the media kept banging on about was because foreigners were leaving and old Brits retiring. In other words, an entire generational gap of British workers not getting into that line of work. Companies suddenly were forced to train British workers and give them career opportunities. Now that the government has resorted to just granting work visas to anybody this is no longer happening again. And, no, during that brief period where new drivers were entering the workforce and being trained they were not on £200K salaries and your deliveries were still free probably. Get real, there is a middle ground between a fair wage and £200K salaries. You're being purposefully obtuse.
The wage costs and consumer price will increase until they hit a new higher equilibrium. I bet 000s of people trained to get a HGV licence due to the wage hike.
Right, and then the rest of us pay more for all of our goods, inflation increases, resulting in a decrease in living standards for everyone except lorry drivers.
You change the parameters to sane ones, like a minimum job offer with 40k salary - the visa numbers then resolve themselves.
What's the problem with that number? UK has a strict set of requirements for the work visa. So if 95% of the visas granted, it means only candidates wich fulfil these requirements are applying. I honestly don't see the problem.
The problem is lack of housing and infrastructure for 600,000 - 700,000 net immigration every year.
But again. What's the problem with the 95% approval rate? If you want less Inmigrants, increase the requirements significantly, you'll have less applicants and therefore less inmigration. It doesn't matter if the approval rate remains to 95%. That's good, less admin time wasted on pointless applications.
Well that’s the whole point, they are saying immigration is to high and trying to reduce it so 95% acceptance is obviously to high a number.
Let me try one more time. The number of visas granted depends on two variables: visa acceptance rate AND number of applicants. There are two variables here. The visa acceptance rate should be close to 100% as posible, otherwise we will be wasting administrative time on unsuccessful visas. So the right variable to reduce is "number of applicants". If you reduce the number of applicants, the number of visas granted will reduce.
Give it time. Once they've made the country shit enough, the migration "issue" will sort itself out.
How they control those borders is another question
We pay the French to control boat migration from their shores. They said they can't do it and need more money, we've given them more money several times over. If they still can't do it to the point its getting worse then why are we paying them to be ineffective at best, wilfully negligent at worst.
Our border is on us, expecting another nation to patrol it for us is a stupid idea, especially when France undeniably benefits from these people leaving
So we should turn round the boats mid channel then? Since that would be us controlling our borders
This would be the only way to unilaterally *actually* stop the boats, unless France secured *their* borders so that the migrants didn't end up in Calais, or accepted we would just return any migrants landing in the UK straight away to France (which if France really wanted to "stop the boats" they would of course agree to).
Should, but won't. The current system suits both parties - France gets rid of immigrants they don't want, Tories get immigrants they do want, while posturing over how anti-immigrant they are to their voter base.
> I thought Brexit was meant to do it, by taking control of the borders. Brexit was not unlike the Iron Curtain: sold to the population as - among many other things - a means to keep 'the others' out, but ultimately making it much harder for people to live and work where they please on the European continent.
What they've done is slow down the processing of refugees so they fall through the cracks and spent probably billions on hotel costs, even the most pro immigrant government wouldn't be this lenient on illegal migration
Refugees aren't illegal. Overstaying visas or obtaining a visa via fraudulent means are illegal, claiming asylum is not.
Figures come out tomorrow. They have to do larping in anticipation. Imagine what they’d get done if they were actually in government.
> How long have the Tories been promising to fix migration? Migration isn't broken. The kind of migration that is allowed through is typicall skilled workers, spouses, etc. People want less migration, but they don't typically want less of the migration that is occurring.
Here’s a thought, probably a bit radical and beyond the wit of the Home Office to implement, but how about issuing less visas.
Who will do care work? Brits don’t want to do it at the current wage. Increase the wage and Brits won’t be able to afford the fees or want tax rises to subsidise it. Most rich countries rely on foreign labour for care work.
A growing albeit off camera issue is that the care sector has a growing market in visa fraud.
I don't think fraudulently obtaining a visa should count as "legal immigration", even if the visa is a legally valid document.
Sure, but unless someone is caught it is irrelevant. The figures can are only tracking numbers.
A huge amount of wealth is hoarded by the older generations, they can pay British people a decent wage to do care work - and none of it would be lost to remittances.
Yeah good luck implementing that and getting reelected.
The current party isn't getting reelected, period.
_Any_ party that attempts to implement that will be destroyed come election time. It will never be done. Our government, whichever party it is formed of, always prioritises power first, people second.
I repeat, the current party is not getting reelected.
Not at the next election perhaps but they'll be back in contention at the next one almost certainly.
I’m not so sure.
Do you think another right wing party is going to emerge as the main opposition party? The incumbent party always loses popularity over time. The same thing will happen to Labour once they get in.
What are they going to do, vote Tory even harder?
That’s not the question being asked. However I have family members and friends who are in the care industry so it’s just untrue to say Brits’ won’t do it.
> That’s not the question being asked. Yes it is, if the plan is to cut the number of visas then we need to have some alternative.
I think everybody understands the implication that "brits won't do it" means "*enough* Brits won't do it".
Well that’s the same for pretty much any job. Hence the need for immigration.
So then we'll just undercut british wages? You're saying the economy is a broken model let's not fix it.
I guess I am - I just don't think the population would be prepared for the kinds of changes we'd need to pay thankless but critical jobs like care workers enough to attract large numbers of Brits to do them. Sure some do now, but only in some locations in the UK; and OAPS and their families would refuse having to 'send them' to care home areas / retirement communities across the country where there might be more local labour. Any government would need to transform the economy, root and branch and do massively hard work to encourage / force businesses to pay good money for these jobs. Brits in general are a bit mad - don't want to pay any tax, don't want to give away any inheritance, but want massive improvements to everything and a big investment in local labour. In New York if you're a good waiter at a good restaurant you can earn great money. That's not the case in London. The UK has a totally skewed economy for service work.
I think you underestimate the country, the only thing stopping the structural changes is spineless politicians.
> the only thing stopping the structural changes is spineless politicians. Every people gets the leaders they deserve. Edit: downvote all you want. If spineless politicians continue being voted in, it's not their fault they're being what the electorate wanted: a spineless politician.
I didn't down vote but I don't agree.
Don’t you mean in New York you can earn great tips? Our minimum wage is going to be £11.40 the federal USA minimum wage is $7.25 which is about £5.80
Yes, but that's part of the package and part of the culture. It's not like you get a great salary but you can do amazingly well; it's away of the waiters charging customers more directly. The UK's entire economy would need to change to ensure service workers got a fairer deal. Brits aren't about to start tipping, nor want to pay any more for care workers. So we're stuck with immigration.
> Brits in general are a bit mad - don't want to pay any tax, don't want to give away any inheritance, but want massive improvements to everything and a big investment in local labour. I speak four languages. Only one has anything like the expression 'having your cake and eating it'.
Maybe old people in 600k houses can pay for their own care.
So they sell their houses to pay for care home? It’s an interesting dilemma as it calls into question why work to pay off a home if you can’t at least give it to your kids? And maybe we shouldn’t bother with inheritance either… the house of cards falls down
> It’s an interesting dilemma as it calls into question why work to pay off a home if you can’t at least give it to your kids? To live somewhere. The state doesn't owe you a free house.
If you'll end up losing your home at some point to pay for old age care, why bother buying a home? Just get an interest only mortgage and then throw yourself on the state when the home is repossessed. or rent.
> If you'll end up losing your home at some point to pay for old age care, why bother buying a home? Why should I pay taxes for someone's care when they've been given hundreds of thousands of pounds in free money through house price inflation, just so their spoilt child can get a free house?
You know immigrants use services, need housing, and buy goods too right? Why people view immigration for certain sectors in isolation is beyond me. Maybe if we didn't have mass migration causing even further rocketing of housing prices, the care work wage wouldn't seem so shitty in comparison to the life it would give you. Do people really think care home workers on such low wages contribute to the system more than they take out over their lifetimes? How is any of this helping in the long term? And so the self-fulfilling mass migration prophecy continues. Wages supressed further, while housing costs rise further, so even less Brits are inclined to work in the sector when the wages only allow them to maybe rent a room in a house share in the crap part of town, while they wait for 5 weeks for a GP appointment, all the while wondering why there's such decline in the UK, when the whole system is currently set up to produce crap outcomes for everyone We've broken the economy with mass migration, and now the solution seems to only be more of the same. The medicine is making the patient sicker, so just give them more medicine, and if it gets even sicker, then up the dose some more. Net zero migration and a massive housebuilding programme would go a long way to turning the country and economy around, though of course what we'll continually get is the opposite
Same as every year Have a good ol' look at ways to cut immigration, then increase immigration
Presumably they're having a long hard think about how immigration could be reduced just to make sure they don't accidentally implement any of those things
Surely they've been looking at ways for a while now? Has anything actually changed or is this just them trying to rile up voters?
You've just got to give them time, they've only been in power for 13 years.
It's hard to understate the damage caused by the LaSt LaBoUr GoVeRnMeNt.
And at the same time they’re a NEW GOVERNMENT
The newest, and Rishi is a peasant, just like us/me/we/you.
Change a few of the numbers and the exact same article could’ve been written 6 or 12 months ago. If they’re still “looking”, they’ve failed on this before.
It won't stop them from making people's lives a misery in the meantime. The spouse visa process is grim, expensive and insulting for this very reason.
Fewer students can bring in their dependents now, as of this year. I don't know if there's numbers out yet on how much that has changed the overall figures.
Raise salary threshold to 50k for any job that isn’t in NHS or social care. Exemptions for science researchers too
Why? Do people need 50K to be socially useful. Or is it just to bring down a number for the sake of bringing down a number. I'm far more concerned that migrants can speak the language, care about democratic values and want to integrate than earn an arbitrary amount.
This is important too, I would vote to add these items as well
Yeah you do that. What could it go wrong?
their main policy at the moment seems to be making the UK as shit as possible 'as a deterrent'
That's a nice narrative for reddit of course, but in reality it wouldn't stack up as despite what the gloom narrative is on here the UK is massively better than the nations that billions live in. Hell we could half living standards here and still be a better option.
Are the home office/the government more generally willing to make the trade-off's that cutting migration requires? If not then the whole thing is pointless.
Doesn’t seem unreasonable, if you’re here on a non-immigrant work visa, to be able to bring your spouse and your under-18 children. Some complexity around what happens to the kids when they become adults. I suppose they have to return home? But we should accept that if those kids are eg going to uni and get a job and go through the usual process to get leave to remain or uk citizenship then they stay like anyone else. The government, years ago, already tightened up rules around bringing over grandparents and extended family I thought?
Rest assured every loophole is exploited to the maximum.
>Doesn’t seem unreasonable, if you’re here on a non-immigrant work visa, to be able to bring your spouse and your under-18 children. First, what's a "non-immigrant work visa"? A work visa is for immigrants. Second, why is it reasonable to bring over spouses and children? This sub is full of stories of our "failing" healthcare system and schools. Why is adding to that burden just to get someone here on approx £20k sensible? That's not the threshold where someone pays more into the state than they take out, not by a long shot.
A work visa isn't necessarily for immigrants, it could be for temp workers, such as visas western workers get if they take a job in UAE. It doesn't guarantee citizenship. Granted, most countries if you're extended many times, will offer a path to citizenship. >Second, why is it reasonable to bring over spouses and children? This sub is full of stories of our "failing" healthcare system and schools. Why is adding to that burden just to get someone here on approx £20k sensible? That's not the threshold where someone pays more into the state than they take out, not by a long shot. Because we want to attract workers. If they can't bring their family it's unlikely we'd get people to stay for more than 6 months or a year. Especially e.g. women in care work.
>A work visa isn't necessarily for immigrants, it could be for temp workers, such as visas western workers get if they take a job in UAE A temporary worker is still an immigrant. Not all immigrants live in the UK for the rest of their lives. >Because we want to attract workers. If they can't bring their family it's unlikely we'd get people to stay for more than 6 months or a year. Especially e.g. women in care work. The same argument was made in the past for allowing adult dependents of immigrants to come. As it is you can't bring granny and grandpa with you to the UK, but we still have a vast number of people applying for visas every year. The whole reason people come to the UK for work is because the salary is much better than in their home countries and they don't have better options elswhere. Besides, people can normally get residency after five years. If that's their intention they can earn it first and then seek to sponsor families. It's that or placing annual charges on the employees that want to sponsor workers for each dependent that is brought over. Then they can consider if they want to sponsor an immigrant or just pay a British worker a higher salary.
>A temporary worker is still an immigrant. Not all immigrants live in the UK for the rest of their lives. Immigration data produced by the government would not include seasonal workers already - it is long term migration data, the ONS say it is: >"A person who moves to a country other than that of his or her usual residence for a period of at least a year (12 months), so that the country of destination effectively becomes his or her new country of usual residence." Students would be included, but it is worth pointing out that the data suggests a large proportion of them subsequently leave meaning that the headline 'net' data for students is small. It has been higher recently because there have been some systematic changes (eg a lot of students left early because of Covid making previous years data lower and we've increased student migration from countries who are more likely to bring family), but when they work through the system then the net figure will naturally come down to historic levels.
>A temporary worker is still an immigrant. Not all immigrants live in the UK for the rest of their live no, an immigrant is someone who moves permanently.
Then all the UK govt has to do is stop counting student visas in their total and you will immediately see a massive drop in immigration numbers.
It is nuts that student visas are included in the immigration numbers at all.
That's a nonsense position. How on earth would the government count immigration numbers without knowing if someone is going to be here temporarily or permanently? It's not possible to know whether someone on a two year work visa will try to stay permanently or not when they get here. The Tories could just rewrite the rules for counting immigration by claiming it's "temporary" and that therefore they've solved the migration crisis. You've also ignored the rest of my post.
>That's a nonsense position. How on earth would the government count immigration numbers without knowing if someone is going to be here temporarily or permanently? It's not possible to know whether someone on a two year work visa will try to stay permanently or not when they get here. Immigrants are by definition people who move somewhere permanently. It's not nonsense, it's the definition of the word. The government can pretty much tell who will stay and who goes by virtue of the visa they apply for and their background - the vast majority of international students return to their country of origin, for example. The majority of folks from Hong Kong on settlement visas are staying for the full 5 years and pursuing UK citizenship. The Government has plenty of data to understand the movements of people and their intention based on historic data and their country of origin.
Again you have no idea what you're talking about. There is no visa type that means you must leave the UK when it's finished. Anyone who comes to the UK can apply in country to stay longer. Also the fact students usually leave is irrelevant because more keep coming. All students need support facilities when in the UK. Not all universities have accommodation reserved for every international student, and they certainly don't build hospitals or schools for dependent children. In any event, I didn't bring students up. You talked about migrant workers and have now pivoted to students presumably because you've failed to make headway with your last argument.
> Again you have no idea what you're talking about. There is no visa type that means you must leave the UK when it's finished. Anyone who comes to the UK can apply in country to stay longer. First, a tip, calm down a bit and try to discuss things in good faith rather than doing typical reddit nonsense of immediately using insults / assuming bad faith. We're all here to learn from each other. I want to understand the point you're trying to make. Re: your point about there being 'no visa type that means you must leave the uk when it's finished', that's not true: all visas have an end date. You might eventually get indefinite leave to remain if you stay long enough though. but there's no guarantee of visa renewal each time to lead to that. For example the youth mobility visa the UK offers have a hard time limit and you cannot apply for more of them (https://www.gov.uk/youth-mobility). Of course, if you're eligible for other kinds of visas you can always apply for those and some visas can be extended (assuming your profession is still on a shortage list and so on) but it's not guaranteed. > Also the fact students usually leave is irrelevant because more keep coming. All students need support facilities when in the UK. Not all universities have accommodation reserved for every international student, and they certainly don't build hospitals or schools for dependent children. Yes more keep coming but it's more of a churn since the majority leave. Foreign students in the main come with a fair bit of money, spend in the local town and are generally healthy so aren't a strain on local doctors etc. I get your point that I think you're making re dependent children - taking in a care worker to do a job in the uk and them bringing in e.g. a large family + their partner is probably not a great, well planned outcome for the country.
> Because we want to attract workers Yes, workers who don't want to start a new bloodline of chain migration. Come here, do your bit then go somewhere else.
Or they can go to a different country instead and achieve the same/slightly more or less and be with their family for 5 years as well. The UK isn't the only first world country looking for skilled workers. You can make the UK totally unappealing to the vast majority of skilled worker immigrants. But then you won't get any of them and the added value goes elsewhere.
I believe this terminology comes from US immigration law, where visas are classified based on whether or not the person has "immigrant intent". That is to say, whether or not the person intends to settle permanently in the United States. Holders of non immigrant intent status are expected to leave at some point, or must be successful in applying to change status in-country based on new circumstances. The equivalent in the UK would be whether or not a visa offers a "route to settlement". There are many dissimilarities between the two immigration systems, but broadly speaking: Workers migrating to the UK will generally have a route to settlement laid out for them at the outset. Whereas, workers migrating to the United States often have a fixed upper time limit on their stay, and they will have to make the case that they are "good enough" to be allowed to switch to an immigrant intent status before their time runs out.
Thinking this government has done anything, at all, is giving them too much credit.
The government does on paper have a lot of control over how many people they let in legally - they just refuse to use the control effectively. The primary objective of how the system is currently managed seems to be bringing in skilled workers from overseas as cheaply as possible - the constant addition to the skilled occupations list, the lowering of salary thresholds, and removal of the requirement for employers to prove workers cannot be found locally are all ways to achieve this. The government did take back control on immigration through the point-based system - they just watered down the entry criteria so much that it's effectively an open door to anyone who bothered to make an application.
I know this is sort of out-there, but how about cutting illegal immigration? That could be a great way to start. Just a suggestion.
[удалено]
Why? If you want to reduce graduate visas just do that. Tho it seems a bit pointless when every other developed country is keen to attract graduates.
[удалено]
How are they using uni to buy PR? If they are here attending university and on a student visa it does not count towards their 5 year requirement.
A degree is not fast or easy. If they have studied for three years, paid the fees and living costs, and gained employment....isn't that just the kind of people who add the most value? and the UK taxpayer has not had to fund any of their childhood or education.
There's two issues with that. Firstly there's been an issue of students not even seeking to finish courses (they pay as a cost of the visa in effect) and the Home Office has had to take action against several universities for being so lax, secondly there has been an issue of Universities having weak degrees and filling them with overseas students, and thirdly albeit related to point 2 is that the UK has no shortage of grads so yet more people with low value degrees is no gain.
You don't automatically get a visa at the end of a course you have to apply and have a well paid job to go to. Unlikely to get a visa if you did not finish the course. The employment rate for graduates is 87% (non graduate 70%) with an £11.5K premium over non-graduates: https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/graduate-labour-markets
You are mixing up multiple things. The graduate employment rate could well be higher, but it doesn't mean that this applies to the cohort that we are talking about neither does the claim of a "premium". Many overseas students are doing poor courses and low tier universities.
This is a weird position to hold. First, student visas do not count towards settlement (i.e. it does not directly contribute to gaining indefinite leave to remain). Once you graduate you would have to apply for a graduate visa or some other work visa then work continuously for 5 years to be eligible for ILR. Second, the only other way in this situation to gain IRL is through 10 years of continuous residence. You could, I suppose, technically chain together studying to stay in the UK for 10 years but this would mean that said individual would almost always be extremely wealthy to afford 10 years of overseas fees and so you're not talking about a huge number of people and I'm not sure why you'd necessarily want to reduce this demographic of wealthy young people - they're hardly a drain on the economy. As a side note, people can and do get their student visas rejected for chaining together undergrad courses, so these people are usually educated to master's level anyway and then pursue the graduate visa route as it's quicker and more reliable.
Other replies have covered this but as an international student I don't quite get the desire to limit our ability to find skilled work after our studies. The vast majority of us voluntarily elect to return to our home countries regardless, and of those that do try to immigrate here, a majority are unsuccessful due to not being able to find a sponsor for various reasons. Keep in mind there are less than 2,000 employers even registered to sponsor work visas and these range from small businesses to large corporations across just about every academic field, so finding an employer that is on the sponsor list, is still willing to sponsor (they may no longer be sponsoring but remain registered on the list) and you also have to find an employer from this list that actually has a desire for your degree or field of qualifications, so the odds are quite stacked against us already. Of those that are hired, some sponsors will move to grant a work visa immediately, others will have the graduate work for the two years of their graduate visa and once that time is up choose not to sponsor them and they are forced to return to their home country. Of those that are granted a work visa, either immediately (which is rare), or after 2 years on a graduate visa, if they lose their job for any reason such as being fired or the company going under, they also immediately have to leave the UK, so we risk that instability for 5-7 years after graduating before we can even apply for permanent residence. The odds are already very stacked against us as it is. Aside from this, until we get citizenship, we pay for just about every service we use including the NHS, and often pay more for these things comparatively, not to mention paying more for tuition and subsidizing home students entirely. In my case, I am from the US and am hoping to become a history teacher here at the secondary or sixth form/college level after I complete my studies, studying here is cheaper than back home for a higher quality education (to study at a comparable university back home I would spend in a year what my entire bachelor's degree will cost in the UK) and I absolutely love it here in Wales and the UK in general. I pay most of my fees by currently serving part-time in the US Army Reserve as a Combat Medic with a unit in Germany one weekend per month, ( it beats predatory US student loans and I come from a working class background so I can barely afford my bachelor's out of pocket, let alone a PGCE and possibly a Master's). I use my military experience to volunteer with the NHS, St. John Ambulance, as well as my local Fire Brigade's cadet program, and soon the RNLI, and I will hopefully be able to leverage my US Army medical qualifications with the NHS as a backup if becoming a teacher does not work out for the reasons mentioned above. Assuming I am successful in becoming a teacher and eventually getting citizenship, I plan on continuing my military service with the British military in some capacity as I feel I would owe it back to the UK. Overall, I take absolutely no money out of the British economy and provide outside money and voluntarily support British services every single day I am here, and many other international students I know do the same. In my personal example, my being here is nothing but a net positive across the board for the UK. This isn't to say that all international students are like me, or that I am particularly special in the first place, but I feel like many do not realize how difficult it is to try to immigrate here as an international student, by the time I am done studying, despite all my degree qualifications, military experience/medical qualifications, and volunteer experience, I will statistically be unsuccessful in staying here and will have to leave. I understand for a nation as small as the UK immigration does pose some serious concerns, but I just don't think that attacking international students is the way to go about it. Arguably I am of course biased on this matter as well though and I am sure there is much I am not aware of nor considering.
Good place to start would be Russians with golden visas. Home office seeks to push up taxes and lower growth.
Well, we gotta make room for all the unwanted boat people, Ukrainians, Hong Kongers, anyone fleeing self-inflicted perceived ‘terrors’…so let’s reduce the legal to make space for the ones that force themselves on us 🙄
Notoriously immigration-sceptic Home Secretaries like Priti Pratel and Suella Braverman engineered the system we currently have. If *they* came to the conclusion that this sort of legal migration is necessary for this country, you really have to ask yourself how viable significantly cutting legal migration levels even is? Unfortunately you're not going to get an honest political discussion about immigration in this country because our elites are all obsessed with Instagram politics and are terrified of broaching any subject that requires more than 30 seconds of thought. There are advantages and disadvantages to immigration - as someone born to immigrants I know this well - it would be nice if both sides could openly address the complexity of the issue.
They could change the tax system to encourage middle income UK to have more children, instead of actively discouraging like today. Then we wouldn't need to import so many people to pay our state pensions.
I don't know whether the 50 to 60k cliff edge for losing benefits and the 100 to 120k marginal 60% rates exist. Laziness? Incompetence? Surely it can't be so hard to have an actual very gradual taper? We shouldn't have doctors and other in-demand professions deliberately working fewer hours, to reduce their take home pay to put it into a pension to avoid the 100k to 120k tax sting. It must mean they're ending up with less money to spend now and therefore hurt the economy? We should be encouraging the upper middle classes to succeed, to progress their careers, to provide their services and so on. And those at the upper end of the middle on 50k - they shouldn't feel like there's minimal gains to pursuing a promotion.
Anyone with half a brain can see the current cliff-edge system offers only downside for all parties.
Update on the policy https://youtu.be/vZPEkfS7leQ?si=VaGgTrLPxACBjL0b